@dallasactuary said:
I haven't looked at this stat for quite a while, but historically when a team enters the 9th inning with a lead, that team will win the game about 93% of the time. That's the average, and the variance around that average is small; even bad teams with bad closers will win about 90% of the time.
Which means that if you have an average closer, replacing him with a great closer will get you about 2 more wins over the course of an entire season. Upgrade a starting pitcher from average to great and you'll win 5+ more games. Dump your two worst pitchers and replace them with good hitters you can platoon in the outfield and you'll win even more games.
"Closer" is a BS "position". Some of the pitchers used in that role are very good, and if they were used correctly rather than only in save situations, they'd help win a lot more games. They wouldn't be "closers" anymore, but they'd be much more valuable.
There is an aspect though where closer final reliever whatever its called they do need the extra pressure and are not very good if they come in in the 7th or 8th Kimbrel sucks in the 7th but was elite in the 9th as an example.
I get the logic but without the pressure and messing up their game day routine you're not really getting the elite guy
Assuming it's true that an elite closer is 2 wins above the mean over the course of a season I think that says it all with regard to which role is more valuable to the team. This says that while a closer might "touch" more games, they're easier to replace.
I don't think this means that you can't put a reliever in the HOF though either. I think they just have to be one of the best of all time.
As far as pressure. That certainly goes both ways. Ignoring Pete Alonso ruining my post-season, a quick review of the statistics --- well I couldn't find anything that showed me OBP or WHIP or even batting average in MLB by inning, let alone for when a team is behind. But I could find runs scored by inning. There is a dramatic drop-off in 7-8-9. So I have to assume the pressure is on the offense as well.
Comments
well said Dallas
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There is an aspect though where closer final reliever whatever its called they do need the extra pressure and are not very good if they come in in the 7th or 8th Kimbrel sucks in the 7th but was elite in the 9th as an example.
I get the logic but without the pressure and messing up their game day routine you're not really getting the elite guy
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Assuming it's true that an elite closer is 2 wins above the mean over the course of a season I think that says it all with regard to which role is more valuable to the team. This says that while a closer might "touch" more games, they're easier to replace.
I don't think this means that you can't put a reliever in the HOF though either. I think they just have to be one of the best of all time.
As far as pressure. That certainly goes both ways. Ignoring Pete Alonso ruining my post-season, a quick review of the statistics --- well I couldn't find anything that showed me OBP or WHIP or even batting average in MLB by inning, let alone for when a team is behind. But I could find runs scored by inning. There is a dramatic drop-off in 7-8-9. So I have to assume the pressure is on the offense as well.